It is a real-world way, Cliff. Photo manipulation scales linearly with the size of the image. Four 24.5mp images would take the same time to alter in sequence as would a single 98mp image. Ditto eight 12mp images.
The point is to make the image large enough that the transforms take long enough to do that it can be reliably timed by a human. The test wouldn't give one CPU an advantage over another.
I think Cliff is trying to say that when working with real-world file sizes and doing real world tasks, the time difference would be so small that it wouldn't make a noticeable difference. If it takes 2 seconds on a Phenom II to do a blur pass on a 5MB image and 1.8 seconds to do the same thing on a Core i7, does it matter?
Not especially, but those same people are also content with their ancient Pentium 4s. I think anyone that is deliberately buying into and discussing the Phenom II vs. Core i7 debate has a very different idea about those fractions of a second.
But as it was said in several earlier comments; "our" market is an infinitesimally small niche. The vast, vast bulk of buyers do no ascribe any significance to percentage points of performance.
Who talks about products? Enthusiasts.
Who generates the buzz for them? Enthusiasts.
Who writes the articles which generate the context sensitive ads? Enthusiasts.
Who Diggs articles about these companies? Enthusiasts.
Who is writing the predictions for the CPU markets? Enthusiasts.
Who are they not talking about? AMD.
Let's talk about something more important: The finance sector.
Who does market valuation? The finance sector.
Who can crush the value of a stock with a single prediction? The finance sector.
Who do corporations watch to create their perception of a brand? The finance sector.
The finance sector doesn't rate AMD well.
Why are the enthusiasts not talking about AMD, and why are ISVs and OEMs bailing on AMD wholesale? Concerns over their future, their ability to meet demands (Spansion just filed for Chapter 11 because it couldn't meet demands).
Why bundle a system with a Phenom II when a cheaper Core 2 Duo will offer Corporate Charles and Best Buy Bob similar performance?
AMD is so swept up in their value proposition of "performance on a budget" that they've failed to produce a processor that can win against a cheaper Intel processor from two years ago.
When Intel offers faster products, a lower pricepoint, better thermals and a stronger channel... Why would anyone have any need to consult or talk about AMD?
That was exactly what I was saying. In reality, is there a real world, prooveable productivity gain from your i7 platform, vs. perhaps putting that money to use some other way? I think there are very rare uses where a power user might be able to argue the benefits of the platform, super heavy multi tasker, lots of HD encoding to do, perhaps, but taking an extreme task that very few users will ever experience just for the sake of the benchmark is all smoke and mirrors, its marketing, its hype, and its misleading to consumers.
Also, for the record, the 4870X2 is besting the GTX285 according to this.... Now, once again, not making a point that its a big deal, either card is a monster, and wonderful, but it was stated earlier that the GTX285 was better, and I somehow doubted that claim.
We've circled back to the concept that people who essentially do not use their computers (those that could get by on an E5200 and be just fine) would do just fine with an AMD chip. Congratulations, you're correct. People who don't stress their machines at all will be perfectly satisfied with AMD - just like they'd be perfectly satisfied with Intel, with a Mac, or probably even with a reasonably-matched Atom or Via. Why do you think the netbook sector has taken off? A bunch of people don't need any more computing power than that.
Meanwhile, the rest of us enthusiasts that like to push our machines and work with huge media that you immediately discount as unrealistic like to talk about good performance, and Intel has it. This article was never about whether AMD makes decent processors. We all know they do. This article was explicitly about the fact that even though they do, nobody talks about them because they've become boring and haven't offered a really competitive piece of silicon in several years.
Is remuxing and ripping a DVD too unrealistic for you as well? What about Folding@Home? Performing a 7-layer HDR render or a 9-frame panoramic stitch? You discount these as things no normal user would ever do, but normal users are actually willing to step DOWN in performance, while the rest of us are looking for the best tools for the job.
I never argued that AMD made bad processors. They make good ones! I'm saying that Intel makes better ones, and that's what captures the attention of the press, the enthusiasts, the writers, the bloggers, the benchmarkers, the tweakers, and especially the finance sector. "Say, AMD makes good things but they're 18 months behind their competitor and we're concerned about their ability to deliver volume orders." UH-OH. Instant buzzkill.
That's all.
AMD is not a bad company. They haven't been since they got their shit together with the Athlon XP. But they are no longer revered like they were with the Athlon 64, when everyone and their mother in this industry wanted one. Why did they want one? It was the best.
People care about #1. Nobody remembers the loser in the superbowl.
Video encoding and folding at home, both more GPU dependant, correct?
Back to my arguement, the CPU and the platform its on is not the complete end all centerpiece of system performance, GPU has become as, if not more important to the "enthusiast" user.
Snarkasm, I don't debate that there is a market for every type of user, but how many "enthusiast" users "perform a 7-layer HDR render or a 9-frame panoramic stitch" often enough that the 30 seconds they might save from one platform to the next is going to have more value than the money they can save?
Its a big complex metric, but I am saying for the computer market at large, and gamers, and most anyone for that matter, it makes more sense to save a little on the chip set, and cpu and plug more into the graphics performance these days. Quad core CPU's are getting it done in any variety and then some for 99.9% of the users, why shoe horn the metrics to only make sense for 0.1% of the market? I think those benchmarks mislead the rest to think they are getting something that they realy are never going to experience, and it does have a trickle down effect in the market perception of a brand, part of why I think less people are talking about AMD. I think hardware review sites have been doing a diservice to the PC market as a whole for years. They look at everything flying at ten thousand feet, but its rarely a realisic way to measure performance.
I agree that AMD has amazing value. No dispute there. All I've been trying to say is that value doesn't get you talked about in the communities that will do the talking. A company's stock price reflects people's faith in your goods, and #2 in a two-person race doesn't cultivate much faith.
Ditto our markets: Twitter, blogs, forums, etc. We love to talk about the cream of the crop, even if we may not buy into the platform (for whatever reason). We love winners! We love CPUs that trash benchmarks! We love #1! And while we all respect value, the performance per dollar, people just love to buzz about whomever does it best.
Twitter shows that that's the case, and I'm the observer who's pointing it out.
I'm really enjoying this thread. Tech Report's recent article on performance/cost analysis of CPUs does a good job showing what processors offer the best value for the dollar in a wide variety of situations.
Regarding value: We can't simply laud AMD for offering inexpensive chips with decent performance because value is a relative term. Regarding their current offerings, I don't think their value is superior, but only on-par. I'm a gearhead so I like to put things in the perspective of cars.
If I buy a brand new Yugo for $50, I've got a great deal! As a car guy, I'd actually consider it, but for most normal people, you'd be hard pressed to convince them that it was a good purchase and not just throwing $50 away. Sure, it should get you to the grocery store and back. It might do well getting you to work. As a sound investment, it's probably not the best choice.
You can buy a used Corolla for $4k. It should do whatever you need in your day-to-day life, gets decent mileage, and is suitable for long trips. What a steal! More people will believe you when you tell them. It makes a bit more sense.
Or, you can buy a Bentley Turbo-R. In 1997, they cost $145,000. Now, they're down to around $15k. It's a car you'll be able to keep for a loooong time, the value has currently bottomed out and will likely rise in the future, and it offers a level of luxury few cars even today can begin to truly compete with. Is it a better value than the other two cars? It costs more. It does more.
Rob, great conversation spurring article. Happy to see so many AMD supporters, we really appreciate the support.
Cliff, have to say that you have a solid understanding of where we are and where we may go!
There are so many commnets on this thread that I simply can't reply or answer or tackle them all, but I will state afew things:
- AMD CPU's are leading in price/performance in almost every pricepoint we play in
- ATI GPU's also lead in almost every price point in terms of perf/price, not to mention a true innovative feature set, not just stickers on old product
- We are committed to gamers and enthusiasts and the communities
- Twitter search comments are silly and unfair, AMD=AND - do i have to point out that the keyboard has "N" and "M" side by side?????
No need to point out that M and N are side-by-side. The point I was trying to make with the comparison is that typos and OEM sales vastly outweighed honest AMD Tweets. Even culling the typos still puts AMD at a conversational disadvantage.
Not meaning to imply that typos count against the firm. That would be dishonest.
I would like to remind everyone that I am a very strong supporter of AMD. I love the Radeons and my house has two AMD systems and two Intel systems. I strongly believe in the right hardware for the right job and the right price, and AMD is a hard winner when it comes to price/performance. You'd be a super Intel fanboy or a dummy to ignore that!
This article posed the question: Why isn't the geekiest conversational hub on earth talking about you guys?
It bothers me, because the younger geek in me crusaded long and hard against Intel for its awful netburst architecture. I won't say the tables have turned, because the Phenom II architecture isn't bad at all (it's great at power/watt, platform bandwidth and transactionals). It DOES bother me that when I look for the top of the performance chart, I don't see much green any more.
I want the Bulldozer to be a real ass-beater. I hope you guys do incredible things with it. Please? Ps, we want to play with one.
Snark,
Video encoding and folding at home, both more GPU dependant, correct?
...
Snarkasm, I don't debate that there is a market for every type of user, but how many "enthusiast" users "perform a 7-layer HDR render or a 9-frame panoramic stitch" often enough that the 30 seconds they might save from one platform to the next is going to have more value than the money they can save?
First, the point isn't about how many people would save more money than time with an AMD system, the point is that the people who ARE doing this work are excited about the numbers and benchies we see from Nehalem, and are NOT excited about the numbers and benchies we see from AMD's latest batches.
Video encoding and remuxing can fluctuate, but when I first began, I moved from an AMD 3000+, I believe, to an AMD64 4800+ the first week they came out ($1000 processor, I lolled at myself) - but I moved from AGE long rips to much improved half-hour to hour rips. I freakin' loved it. It was ENTIRELY CPU improved - I only changed mobo with the upgrade. It can really bake your processor.
As far as Folding, while there is a GPU client that pumps out mad points, many of us also still run the SMP client, which rocks all your cores to 100% usage. Changing processors can net you significantly reduced frame times, which improves calculation speed and point totals.
I moved from a 4800+ to a 6000+ after that, and then straight to a Q6600 and a Q9550 now. They were great processors in their day, but the Core2 and Nehalem architectures have just outclassed them in terms of raw ability. They make good chips - but so do Via. Neither of them put up the performance numbers the latest Intel architectures do. When geeks talk tech, we get excited over performance numbers for revolutionary tech. I was intrigued when Intel started talking about QPI and on-die memory controllers. I was mesmerized when I heard numbers out of an Asian tech show a year (or two?) ago that said tech-demo Nehalems were besting the BEST C2Q chips by 20% clock for clock or lower clock speeds. The boosts coming out of Nehalem actually MADE ME INTERESTED.
I haven't heard anything about revolutionary updates to AMD architecture, and sure don't hear anything about 20% boosts over the previous gen clock-for-clock. The chips are good, but they're solid, not exciting. I'll continue to recommend them for cheap builds because, as you say, they'll never use their full potential, but when I'm building for me and I'm building for pure performance, I'm building Intel Nehalem right now.
I respect your point of view, but lets get this out of the way, comparing AMD to Via is just silly, and everyone here knows it. Via is not a major player in the CPU market. For the record, we agree that the Nehalem is an exciting piece of tech, perhaps not practical for a large segment of the market, but it has its place.
Just to re state my point though, the only reason they offer one at under $300 is because of AMD's sticking out a tough uphill battle, against a competitor that has been called out once or twice for playing less than fair. As computer enthusiasts we have plenty of reason to want AMD to succeed, and we should give them fair credit for what they have achieved at an obvious market disadvantage.
I still think there are plenty of things to be excited about in AMD's camp.
- Inexpensive unlocked CPU's, The AMD 780/790 chipsets, Radeon 48xx graphics technology, Amazing pricing, Integrated computing platforms that offer great mainstream performance, potentially high end notebook graphics that wont meltdown (Nvidia's track record less than stellar here), Better Windows 7 drivers, DX 10.1 support, they also have the graphics contracts for the two winners of this console generation, Overdrive and Fusion for gaming software is awesome, I could keep going and going.
Enthusiasts may be excited about Nehalem, understandable, but don't let that distract us from everything else that is great in the market. AMD is doing allot of great stuff, and people should be talking about it.
0
LeonardoWake up and smell the glaciersEagle River, AlaskaIcrontian
edited March 2009
What AMD offers is a superior value. Why more people don't care about that is beyond my understanding.
"Most people" buy a complete system off a shelf or from a manufacturer's web page. If it looks snappy, is competitively priced, and has the features they want, they buy it. Most people do not really care what the brand of the CPU is. Many of them have learned that MHz ratings aren't everything and mulit-core is a good thing, but system features, system price, and system brand reputation are far more important factors for most consumers and businesses than processor brand.
Simply put, very few people care about processors. They care about systems. How many people today looked at laptops at BestBuy? How many people today looked at processors at Fry's Electronics? Probably a ratio of 1000:1.
Could be an oportunity for Icrontic, challenge the paradigm of the hardware review establishment. I think when that happens, AMD's market perception will improve.
AMD's market perception will improve when they release better, more competitive products.
But that's just it Mochan, they have released a better, more competitive product. The Phenom II is better than AMD's previous offerings and it's competitive with similar Intel chips. The one, most important thing AMD is missing is competition at the highest-end of the marketplace.
If you want to generate buzz, the best way to get attention is through a halo product. People who like performance get excited by competition. The early reports of the Phenom II being an amazing overclocker were the closest thing AMD has had for generating processor excitement in quite a while. Sadly, that buzz died down when folks found the margin of overclockability varies greatly by chips so some will be lucky to hit 3.7GHz, while a rare few will hit 5GHz on air. One folks realized they couldn't guarantee an extra GHz of speed, the hype died down.
Following that, I don't think we've seen any buzzworthy news. The Phenom II X3 made some headlines with the unlockable 4th core, but that was more of a fluke than anything. It didn't help when Newegg sold out of the chips the day the news hit and was confirmed. The fastest way to kill a hype wave is to run out of the product. Oops.
I like AMD, and I've always been very pleased with their staff and their products. On a professional level, they've been one of the nicest companies to work with here at Icrontic. I've got no problem recommending their stuff to general users looking for a solid, well-rounded system. But my excitement has waned a bit. It's hard to get pumped up when there are fourhyperthreadedcores tempting me everywhere I go. It's my hope that they'll enter the 32nm game quicker than Thrax suggests, and that they'll be able to close the gap and pose a threat to the fastest chips on the market.
Comments
This says it all.
The point is to make the image large enough that the transforms take long enough to do that it can be reliably timed by a human. The test wouldn't give one CPU an advantage over another.
I know I do. Especially for $120.
Who talks about products? Enthusiasts.
Who generates the buzz for them? Enthusiasts.
Who writes the articles which generate the context sensitive ads? Enthusiasts.
Who Diggs articles about these companies? Enthusiasts.
Who is writing the predictions for the CPU markets? Enthusiasts.
Who are they not talking about? AMD.
Let's talk about something more important: The finance sector.
Who does market valuation? The finance sector.
Who can crush the value of a stock with a single prediction? The finance sector.
Who do corporations watch to create their perception of a brand? The finance sector.
The finance sector doesn't rate AMD well.
Why are the enthusiasts not talking about AMD, and why are ISVs and OEMs bailing on AMD wholesale? Concerns over their future, their ability to meet demands (Spansion just filed for Chapter 11 because it couldn't meet demands).
Why bundle a system with a Phenom II when a cheaper Core 2 Duo will offer Corporate Charles and Best Buy Bob similar performance?
AMD is so swept up in their value proposition of "performance on a budget" that they've failed to produce a processor that can win against a cheaper Intel processor from two years ago.
When Intel offers faster products, a lower pricepoint, better thermals and a stronger channel... Why would anyone have any need to consult or talk about AMD?
That was exactly what I was saying. In reality, is there a real world, prooveable productivity gain from your i7 platform, vs. perhaps putting that money to use some other way? I think there are very rare uses where a power user might be able to argue the benefits of the platform, super heavy multi tasker, lots of HD encoding to do, perhaps, but taking an extreme task that very few users will ever experience just for the sake of the benchmark is all smoke and mirrors, its marketing, its hype, and its misleading to consumers.
Also, for the record, the 4870X2 is besting the GTX285 according to this.... Now, once again, not making a point that its a big deal, either card is a monster, and wonderful, but it was stated earlier that the GTX285 was better, and I somehow doubted that claim.
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,2845,2343324,00.asp
Meanwhile, the rest of us enthusiasts that like to push our machines and work with huge media that you immediately discount as unrealistic like to talk about good performance, and Intel has it. This article was never about whether AMD makes decent processors. We all know they do. This article was explicitly about the fact that even though they do, nobody talks about them because they've become boring and haven't offered a really competitive piece of silicon in several years.
Is remuxing and ripping a DVD too unrealistic for you as well? What about Folding@Home? Performing a 7-layer HDR render or a 9-frame panoramic stitch? You discount these as things no normal user would ever do, but normal users are actually willing to step DOWN in performance, while the rest of us are looking for the best tools for the job.
I never argued that AMD made bad processors. They make good ones! I'm saying that Intel makes better ones, and that's what captures the attention of the press, the enthusiasts, the writers, the bloggers, the benchmarkers, the tweakers, and especially the finance sector. "Say, AMD makes good things but they're 18 months behind their competitor and we're concerned about their ability to deliver volume orders." UH-OH. Instant buzzkill.
That's all.
AMD is not a bad company. They haven't been since they got their shit together with the Athlon XP. But they are no longer revered like they were with the Athlon 64, when everyone and their mother in this industry wanted one. Why did they want one? It was the best.
People care about #1. Nobody remembers the loser in the superbowl.
Video encoding and folding at home, both more GPU dependant, correct?
Back to my arguement, the CPU and the platform its on is not the complete end all centerpiece of system performance, GPU has become as, if not more important to the "enthusiast" user.
Snarkasm, I don't debate that there is a market for every type of user, but how many "enthusiast" users "perform a 7-layer HDR render or a 9-frame panoramic stitch" often enough that the 30 seconds they might save from one platform to the next is going to have more value than the money they can save?
Its a big complex metric, but I am saying for the computer market at large, and gamers, and most anyone for that matter, it makes more sense to save a little on the chip set, and cpu and plug more into the graphics performance these days. Quad core CPU's are getting it done in any variety and then some for 99.9% of the users, why shoe horn the metrics to only make sense for 0.1% of the market? I think those benchmarks mislead the rest to think they are getting something that they realy are never going to experience, and it does have a trickle down effect in the market perception of a brand, part of why I think less people are talking about AMD. I think hardware review sites have been doing a diservice to the PC market as a whole for years. They look at everything flying at ten thousand feet, but its rarely a realisic way to measure performance.
What AMD offers is a superior value. Why more people don't care about that is beyond my understanding.
Offering a superior value certainly does not make AMD the looser.
I agree that AMD has amazing value. No dispute there. All I've been trying to say is that value doesn't get you talked about in the communities that will do the talking. A company's stock price reflects people's faith in your goods, and #2 in a two-person race doesn't cultivate much faith.
Ditto our markets: Twitter, blogs, forums, etc. We love to talk about the cream of the crop, even if we may not buy into the platform (for whatever reason). We love winners! We love CPUs that trash benchmarks! We love #1! And while we all respect value, the performance per dollar, people just love to buzz about whomever does it best.
Twitter shows that that's the case, and I'm the observer who's pointing it out.
Regarding value: We can't simply laud AMD for offering inexpensive chips with decent performance because value is a relative term. Regarding their current offerings, I don't think their value is superior, but only on-par. I'm a gearhead so I like to put things in the perspective of cars.
If I buy a brand new Yugo for $50, I've got a great deal! As a car guy, I'd actually consider it, but for most normal people, you'd be hard pressed to convince them that it was a good purchase and not just throwing $50 away. Sure, it should get you to the grocery store and back. It might do well getting you to work. As a sound investment, it's probably not the best choice.
You can buy a used Corolla for $4k. It should do whatever you need in your day-to-day life, gets decent mileage, and is suitable for long trips. What a steal! More people will believe you when you tell them. It makes a bit more sense.
Or, you can buy a Bentley Turbo-R. In 1997, they cost $145,000. Now, they're down to around $15k. It's a car you'll be able to keep for a loooong time, the value has currently bottomed out and will likely rise in the future, and it offers a level of luxury few cars even today can begin to truly compete with. Is it a better value than the other two cars? It costs more. It does more.
Cliff, have to say that you have a solid understanding of where we are and where we may go!
There are so many commnets on this thread that I simply can't reply or answer or tackle them all, but I will state afew things:
- AMD CPU's are leading in price/performance in almost every pricepoint we play in
- ATI GPU's also lead in almost every price point in terms of perf/price, not to mention a true innovative feature set, not just stickers on old product
- We are committed to gamers and enthusiasts and the communities
- Twitter search comments are silly and unfair, AMD=AND - do i have to point out that the keyboard has "N" and "M" side by side?????
If any of you know or read Scott's site, you know he is ruthlessly fair and honest - http://techreport.com/articles.x/16570
Finally, I am on Twitter - IanMcNaughton - lets go chat there!
Cheers,
Ian
No need to point out that M and N are side-by-side. The point I was trying to make with the comparison is that typos and OEM sales vastly outweighed honest AMD Tweets. Even culling the typos still puts AMD at a conversational disadvantage.
Not meaning to imply that typos count against the firm.
I would like to remind everyone that I am a very strong supporter of AMD. I love the Radeons and my house has two AMD systems and two Intel systems. I strongly believe in the right hardware for the right job and the right price, and AMD is a hard winner when it comes to price/performance. You'd be a super Intel fanboy or a dummy to ignore that!
This article posed the question: Why isn't the geekiest conversational hub on earth talking about you guys?
It bothers me, because the younger geek in me crusaded long and hard against Intel for its awful netburst architecture. I won't say the tables have turned, because the Phenom II architecture isn't bad at all (it's great at power/watt, platform bandwidth and transactionals). It DOES bother me that when I look for the top of the performance chart, I don't see much green any more.
I want the Bulldozer to be a real ass-beater. I hope you guys do incredible things with it.
Howdy to Cliff, Mirage, neoanderthal, and Ian :cheers2:
First, the point isn't about how many people would save more money than time with an AMD system, the point is that the people who ARE doing this work are excited about the numbers and benchies we see from Nehalem, and are NOT excited about the numbers and benchies we see from AMD's latest batches.
Video encoding and remuxing can fluctuate, but when I first began, I moved from an AMD 3000+, I believe, to an AMD64 4800+ the first week they came out ($1000 processor, I lolled at myself) - but I moved from AGE long rips to much improved half-hour to hour rips. I freakin' loved it. It was ENTIRELY CPU improved - I only changed mobo with the upgrade. It can really bake your processor.
As far as Folding, while there is a GPU client that pumps out mad points, many of us also still run the SMP client, which rocks all your cores to 100% usage. Changing processors can net you significantly reduced frame times, which improves calculation speed and point totals.
I moved from a 4800+ to a 6000+ after that, and then straight to a Q6600 and a Q9550 now. They were great processors in their day, but the Core2 and Nehalem architectures have just outclassed them in terms of raw ability. They make good chips - but so do Via. Neither of them put up the performance numbers the latest Intel architectures do. When geeks talk tech, we get excited over performance numbers for revolutionary tech. I was intrigued when Intel started talking about QPI and on-die memory controllers. I was mesmerized when I heard numbers out of an Asian tech show a year (or two?) ago that said tech-demo Nehalems were besting the BEST C2Q chips by 20% clock for clock or lower clock speeds. The boosts coming out of Nehalem actually MADE ME INTERESTED.
I haven't heard anything about revolutionary updates to AMD architecture, and sure don't hear anything about 20% boosts over the previous gen clock-for-clock. The chips are good, but they're solid, not exciting. I'll continue to recommend them for cheap builds because, as you say, they'll never use their full potential, but when I'm building for me and I'm building for pure performance, I'm building Intel Nehalem right now.
I respect your point of view, but lets get this out of the way, comparing AMD to Via is just silly, and everyone here knows it. Via is not a major player in the CPU market. For the record, we agree that the Nehalem is an exciting piece of tech, perhaps not practical for a large segment of the market, but it has its place.
Just to re state my point though, the only reason they offer one at under $300 is because of AMD's sticking out a tough uphill battle, against a competitor that has been called out once or twice for playing less than fair. As computer enthusiasts we have plenty of reason to want AMD to succeed, and we should give them fair credit for what they have achieved at an obvious market disadvantage.
I still think there are plenty of things to be excited about in AMD's camp.
- Inexpensive unlocked CPU's, The AMD 780/790 chipsets, Radeon 48xx graphics technology, Amazing pricing, Integrated computing platforms that offer great mainstream performance, potentially high end notebook graphics that wont meltdown (Nvidia's track record less than stellar here), Better Windows 7 drivers, DX 10.1 support, they also have the graphics contracts for the two winners of this console generation, Overdrive and Fusion for gaming software is awesome, I could keep going and going.
Enthusiasts may be excited about Nehalem, understandable, but don't let that distract us from everything else that is great in the market. AMD is doing allot of great stuff, and people should be talking about it.
Simply put, very few people care about processors. They care about systems. How many people today looked at laptops at BestBuy? How many people today looked at processors at Fry's Electronics? Probably a ratio of 1000:1.
AMD's market perception will improve when they release better, more competitive products.
If you want to generate buzz, the best way to get attention is through a halo product. People who like performance get excited by competition. The early reports of the Phenom II being an amazing overclocker were the closest thing AMD has had for generating processor excitement in quite a while. Sadly, that buzz died down when folks found the margin of overclockability varies greatly by chips so some will be lucky to hit 3.7GHz, while a rare few will hit 5GHz on air. One folks realized they couldn't guarantee an extra GHz of speed, the hype died down.
Following that, I don't think we've seen any buzzworthy news. The Phenom II X3 made some headlines with the unlockable 4th core, but that was more of a fluke than anything. It didn't help when Newegg sold out of the chips the day the news hit and was confirmed. The fastest way to kill a hype wave is to run out of the product. Oops.
I like AMD, and I've always been very pleased with their staff and their products. On a professional level, they've been one of the nicest companies to work with here at Icrontic. I've got no problem recommending their stuff to general users looking for a solid, well-rounded system. But my excitement has waned a bit. It's hard to get pumped up when there are fourhyperthreadedcores tempting me everywhere I go. It's my hope that they'll enter the 32nm game quicker than Thrax suggests, and that they'll be able to close the gap and pose a threat to the fastest chips on the market.